Refutation to GF Haddad's mis-representations and slander

Someone pointed out to me what is attributed to Shaykh GF Haddad, that he refuted Huzoor Mufakire Islam presentation. The attributed critique explicitly and implicitly leads to many accusations against Huzoor Mufakire Islam, including mocking and slander, such as calling him someone who does Talbis!!! Insha'Allah I will show you that the Talbis has been with Shaykh Gibril in this particular issue, rather than Mufakire Islam.

This is what is attributed to Shayk GF Haddad: The post is by a man named Faqir.

The passage in Maqalat al-Islamiyyin refers to the positions of the Muslims as awhole, including the Mu`tazila, Shi`a and Khawarij, and not just Ahl al-Sunna.

Imam al-Ash`ari states the Sunni Ijma` that Abu Bakr is the best of this Ummaafter the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, in al-Ibana and in Ijma` 46 ofhis Risala ila Ahl al-Thaghr, and it is his own position `aqlan as well asconfirmed by Imam Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi in the section on tafdil in his bookUsul al-Din. Imam al-Ash`ari even considered that the proof for the primacy ofAbu Bakr and `Umar, Allah be well-pleased with them, is in the Qur'an, as shownfrom the conclusion of his Luma`.

As for the passage quoting Ibn `Abbas it is from Muruj al-Dhahab by al-Mas`udi,a Shi`i Mu`tazili as Ibn Hajar described him in Lisan al-Mizan (4:225), and hespecifically lambasted that writer's position on the tafdil of Sayyidina `Ali;on top of which this report is chainless and its Arabic is incoherent. Can youimagine Mu`awiya repeatedly addressing Ibn `Abbas, Allah be well-pleased withthem, with the words: "Ayyuha ya Ibna `Abbas"??

Observe also how the speaker in the link provided passes quickly over the hadithin Sahih al-Bukhari in which Ibn `Umar, radya Allahu `anhuma, states theagreement of the Sahaba: "We used to say in the time of the Prophet, Abu Bakr,then `Umar, then `Uthman" and instead latches on to some forgery from a Shi`ibook; how then does he expect to be taken seriously after such talbis? No wonderhe does not even mention the hadith of Sayyidina `Ali himself in Sahihal-Bukhari, stating that when his son Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya asked him: "Whois the best of people after the Prophet?" he himself replied: "Abu Bakr, then`Umar."

May Allah Most High show us haqq for what it is and cause us to follow it, andshow us batil for what it is and cause us to shun it.

Was-Salam,GF Haddad__________________ 1- Shaykh GF Haddad claims that Imam Abul Hasan Al Ash'ari in that " The passage in Maqalat al-Islamiyyin refers to the positions of the Muslims as a whole, including the Mu`tazila, Shi`a and Khawarij, and not just Ahl al-Sunna."A-By reviewing many pages before and many pages after in the book of Imam Abul Hasan (ra), any beginnger can tell that when Al Imam mentions "Ikhtalafoo" = "they disagreed", he mostly means Ahlus Sunnah. When the Imam wants to include the Shia, or Mutazilah, he usually names them specifically, as he did in a page before page 340 when talking about the fights amongst the Sahaba (ra). In fact, in that passage Al Imam Abul Hasan, did not mention the whole Ummah, and did not indicate anything, except Ikhtalafoo= They disagreed.Here is the full passage, found on page 341 of Maqalat Al Islamiyeen: واختلفوا في التفضيل : فقال قائلون أفضل الناس بعد رسول الله صل ىالله عليه وسلم : أبو بكر ثم عمر ثم عثمان ثم علي.

Here is verbatum what Imam Al Ash'ari said: ( you judge for yourself).

" They disagreed in the Tafdil:

Some said: the best of people after Rasoolullah- sallallahu alayhi wa sallam-: Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman, then Ali.

Some said: The best of people after Rasoolullah-sallallahu alayhi wa sallam: Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Ali, then Uthman.

Some said: we say: Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman, then we remain silent.

Some said: the best of people after Rasoolullah-sallallahu alayhi wa sallam,: Ali, then Abu Bakr after him.

Those who went to affirmation of the Fadl of Abu Bakr and Umar, that Abu Bakr is Afdal than Umar, and those who went to affirmation of the Fadl of Umar and Uthman, that Umar is better than Uthman.

Some said: we do not know who is Afdhal, Abu Bakr or Ali. if it is Abu Bakr, then it is possible that then Umar is better than Ali, and it is also possible that Ali is better than Umar. And if Ali is better than Umar, then he is better than Uthman, because Umar is better than Uthman. If Umar is better than Ali, then it is possible that Ali is better than Uthman, and it is possible that Uthman is better than Ali, and the latter is the saying of Al Jubba'iy". End of the entire paragraph by Imam Abul Hasan verbatum.

Notes: Al Jubba'iy is a Mutazili scholar. And Al Imam made it clear that this was his opinion, when he was talking about Ahlus Sunnah, to differentiate, when he did not mention any other sect above.

if you read the pages before, you will see clearly that Imam Abul Hasan mentions clearly when it is someone/sect other than Ahlus Sunnah, so people don't get confused.

Secondly:

WHERE IS THE DALEEL From Imam ABUL HASAN himself that in this paragraph he meant the whole Ummah ( Mu'tazilah, Shia, Khawrej, and Ahlus Sunnah). Besides, do we consider the Khawarej as part of the Ummah!!! and do we consider the extreme Shia's as part of the Ummah!!???????? You will find out that the Talbis was with Shaykh GF Haddad when he attributes to Imam Abul Hasan something he didn't say, nor obviously intended.

Thirdly:

Shaykh GF Haddad claims that in the paragraph above, Imam Abul Hasan was also including the " including the Mu`tazila, Shi`a and Khawarij " .

WHERE IS THE DALEEL FOR THIS BROTHER GF HADDAD????

Can anyone please -regardless how ignorant in the islamic sects and their ideology- tell me a formal Shia group that says that Ali is better then Abu Bakr after him???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In fact, the 12'ers (Allah guide them) declare Abu Bakr as Kafer- Na'uzu billah. let along a muslim, let along the second in Afdaliyat after Ali. Nor do the Zaydi Shia, whe believe that After Ali is Hasan, and so on. In fact, there is no Shia school that believes in any of the four or even five branches Imam Abul Hasan mentioned about the Afdaliya. Which leads us to two things: either Imam Abul Hasan is ignorant of the Shia, Khawarej, and their differences with Ahlus Sunnah (which is next to impossible), or Mr GF Haddad is guilty of more than just plain ignorance..., Allah guide him.

The Shia's UNEQUIVICALLY favour Ali, then Imam Hasan, then Imam Husayn. Then they branch out to 12'er, Zaydi, Ismaili, Kisani, etc... all the known ones, Imam Abdul Qaher Al Baghdadi and Imam Shaharastani mentioned in their old books about the Islamic sects. None of the Shia sects favor Abu Bakr in anyway over Imam Hasan, or Imam Husayn, or even any one from Ahlul Bayt until the day of judgment, let along over Ali. In fact, the only Shia sect to even consider Sayyidina Abu Bakr as Muslim, are the Zaydi Shia.

Thats not even talking about their stand against Sayyidina Uthman (ra), as NO Shia sect even accepts him remotely, let along to consider him a righteous Khalifah, let along, as one of the best people after the prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam.

Fourth:

I would like to know from Shaykh GF Haddad, which of the Khawarej sects that are known to us in the old books, favour Ali even remotely. In fact, their whole off-shoot was based on their split from Ali and declaring him as Kafir. But then, you make them here agree than Ali is one of the four best people!!!!!!

Fifth:

As far as the Mutazilah: most of the them, went to the absolute Tafdil of Sayyidina Ali over the three, may Allah be pleased with all of them.

Anyone who reads the whole paragraph by Imam Abul Hasan (ra), and compare with the explicit daring Fatawa Shaykh GF Haddad issues again and again, will see the flawed coersion of the texts.

It is one thing to say that Ahlus Sunnah (Allah be pleased with them) settled on the opinion that Sayydina Siddiqque-Akbar (radiya Allahu anhu wa ardaah) is Afdal. This is truely the opinion of Ahlus Sunnah (may Allah be pleased with them that they settled on- because there were disagreement on this issue in every aspect of it, whether it was the sequence of Tafdil, the affirmation of the issue as Qat'i or Thanni, and the tawaqquff in it entirely. The disgareement began from the Sahaba times, till now, and the Imams of Ahlus Sunnah talked about it, and we finally came to the conclusion that the Afdaliyat is based on the Khilafa sequence.end of story.). But it is another thing to practice "intellectual terrorism", demonisation and coersion of the texts to promote your view. Let along calling names and slander to Ulama who disagree, for that then also applies to some Sahaba and Ahlul Bayt who held that view.

It is also worth mentioning, that Sayyidina Imam Abul Hasan (ra) went the absolute Afdaliya of Sayyidina Siddiqque-Akbar (ra) in a Qat'i way, as Imam Abul Hasan himself articulated.

From the above, you will see how Shaykh GF Haddad misrepresented the paragraph of Imam Abul Hasan. He has been known for firely remarks and sitorted opinions about scholars he doesn't agree with. His recent un-called for and quite honestly ugly remarks about Shaykh Dr. Muhammad Tahir Al Qadiri to some brothers in the UK were evident of that. Now Huzoor Mufakire Islam, (adding to the previous list of Ulama) just shows that if you are a scholar who disagree with Shaykh Gibril's view, then you may risk being subject to distorted information and even slander by him, may Allah forgive us and him. I know that he is a sincere person and a good guy with great intentions. But those qualities are not a license for anybody to mock, slander, or belittle other scholars, nor to present mis-representations. Especially with Ulama and the household of our Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam. May Allah preserve and guide him and us. Ya Akhi disagree, but don't mock or slander those you disagree with, don't belittle them and then disagree all you want.

As for Shaykh GF Haddad's criticism that included mockery and slander in this article that Huzoor Mufakire Islam is Mulabbis (covers the Haq with Batel), when he said: " Observe also how the speaker in the link provided passes quickly over the hadithin Sahih al-Bukhari in which Ibn `Umar, radya Allahu `anhuma, states theagreement of the Sahaba: "We used to say in the time of the Prophet, Abu Bakr,then `Umar, then `Uthman" and instead latches on to some forgery from a Shi`ibook; how then does he expect to be taken seriously after such talbis?"

I will show you that the Talbis was not from Huzoor Mufakire Islam, but from Shaykh GF Haddad, may Allah preserve and guide all.

well presented and proven brother Hanafi. It is so easy for someone to point fingers at great scholars like Mufakkir e Islam without no evidence and get away without any accountability in todays world, but people forget they will not get away with their injustice on the day of judgement before Almighty Allah swt.

I don't know how faqir can quote and praise Shaikh GF Haddad...faqir is a well known deo-bandi sympathiser..why doesn't he quote what the shaikh has written about those "deo-bandi ulema" in his book entitled "albani and his friends"...why cherry pick and only seek to bring to light the "error" of Qibla Shah Sahib which has been refuted by Brother Hanafi Student.

Ya Sidi Chisti,

I have been praying and been instructed even, for this topic not to be opened up again. Anybody who knows, knows that there are AUTHENTIC narrations leading both ways, and some SAHABA (ra) disagreed in AUTHENTIC narrations. Okay, we Ahlus Sunnah have settled this issue for us. Big level scholars can have their little opinion, as long as it does not conflict with the Qu'ran and Sunnah. But why do these brothers keep bringing up the issue over and over, knowing that it will create again another Fitnah.

I hope this stops once and for all.

What are we going to say about some of our Imams who did not even consider this issue of Tafdil entirely to be among the issues of Aqa'ed, such as :

I am not saying what their opinion was, but I am saying that all those Imams in their statement did not consider the matter of Tafdil as an issue of Aqidah. So why do we have such over-zealous people trying to inject it to further divide the Sunni's, and create a raft, which will backfire on all of us, because there are AUTHENTIC narrations that some Sahaba (ra) and some Ahlul Bayt favoured Ali over all. Yet this was not the majority's opinion, nor the opinion that Ahlus Sunnah settled on. POINT BLANK. Besides, it is not according to many Ulama an issue of Aqa'ed, so lets leave it aside. Even if some great Ulama in the recent times went to that, Ya Akhi, there are greator than those recent Ulama in the older days who disagreed. So lets respect all of them, and teach what we settled on, without slandering some Sahaba (ra) who disagreed, or some Ahlul Bayt (like Imam Zayd) who disagreed, etc.. Let us leave this fine disagreement to the high level Ulama and worry about loving all the 5 Khulafa Rashidin, may Allah be pleased with them Ajma'in.

Brother Hanafi student you have left out a few key issues. It may be that Mr. G F Haddad was discourteous to a specific scholar but the key issue has not been tackled.

One group is claiming Ijma' and the other is saying their is no Ijma'. No doubt this is a matter which pertains to the Usul, and therefore very contentious.

For arguements sake we say Gibril misrepresented the passage from Maqala of Imam Abu alHasan alAshari, youstill would have to reply to his critique where he says:

Imam al-Ash`ari states the Sunni Ijma` that Abu Bakr is the best of this Ummaafter the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, in al-Ibana and in Ijma` 46 ofhis Risala ila Ahl al-Thaghr, and it is his own position `aqlan as well asconfirmed by Imam Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi in the section on tafdil in his bookUsul al-Din. Imam al-Ash`ari even considered that the proof for the primacy ofAbu Bakr and `Umar, Allah be well-pleased with them, is in the Qur'an, as shownfrom the conclusion of his Luma`.

Then there is the issue of quoting Companions and different Scholars on this same issue. It is very clear that one of the Speakers quoted Masu'di and made him seem to the illiterate audience as a valid source of law, when it is well known that this Masu'di is very instrumental for orientalists.

You have yet to tackle Gibrils criticism of Masu'di. And as you stand as an apologist you would have to explain why the Speaker mentions Masu'di and then makes him seem like a very reliable Scholar?? Gibril says:

As for the passage quoting Ibn `Abbas it is from Muruj al-Dhahab by al-Mas`udi,a Shi`i Mu`tazili as Ibn Hajar described him in Lisan al-Mizan (4:225), and hespecifically lambasted that writer's position on the tafdil of Sayyidina `Ali;on top of which this report is chainless and its Arabic is incoherent. Can youimagine Mu`awiya repeatedly addressing Ibn `Abbas, Allah be well-pleased withthem, with the words: "Ayyuha ya Ibna `Abbas"??

You cited examples of Scholars who (according to you) did not see this as an issue of Usul, the likes of Juwayni etc. You would have to know that these Ulama differed in their Mustalahat (jargon) when discussing the same thing. A good example of this is Juwaynis definition of Ijma'...

This topic was debated in earlier threads and pertinent questions remain unanswered and whole posts have been deleted. But i hope you deal with Gibril's comments properly and then we can take it from there, inshaAllah.

kattarsunni none of the threads have been deleted. They are moved to a non public space as we don't see this topic drawing any benefit for the average Sunni. Believe it or not but people can still remain good Muslims without indulging into this topic. We made an in person debate offer to you and that stands even today. Thus, if you can't put up then no more chit chat from you please.

GF Haddad is a great Sunni scholar and he is entitled to express his views just like every other learned man. We love him for the sake of Allah Subhana Watala and pray that Allah grants him an opportunity to discuss the topic face to face with the individual he has raised his pen against. Apparently he has underestimated the fact that Pir Syed Abdul Qadir Jilani was teaching the books he is quoting while he was still a catholic.

I know some Kanjars are going to spin every word I write on this topic so I don't want to give them the pleasure.

Brother AQ that's a knockout!

Tahir

AdministratorYaNabi Team -Only A Good Human Being Can Become A Good Muslim

yes, their star user faqir is a deobandi but it does not seem to bother them nor have they ever refuted him. Instead he enjoys a confort zone but they say bad about great Sunni Mashaykh.

As soon as I saw Haddad Sahib's response, the flaws were visible from the word go. Hanafi Student said it well, in his twisted agenda to not attain the truth he comes out with all sorts. This is nearly as bad as his answer which was negatively of the people who remember the martyrdom of Imam Husayn. I used to think he was a good scholar but the more I read I realised that his CD and book searches were void of maturity, responsibility, scholarship and perhaps most of all, sincerity.

brother gf haddad is inconsistent in what he says.for example, here is what he says about ibn hazm on his website.

Quote

Ibn Hazm is considered a reference on the determination of scholarly consensus (ijma`) - which he restricted to the Companions' time - and scholarly difference (khilaf).

the quote above is clearly saying that ibn hazm is a 'reference' in matters of IJMA and Difference amongst SCHOLARS.

below is what Ibn Hazm has to say about the 'difference' in tafzil amongst ahl al-sunna.

some ahl as-sunna, some mutazila, some murjiya and ALL shia believed that Ali bin abi talib was the most afdhal in the Ummah after the Prophet(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wasalam).....and ALL khawarij, some ahl al-sunna,some mutazila and some murjiya held that shaykhain were the most afdhal.

the above is not about his OWN opinion but a historical fact about DIFFERENCE.

so it stands to reason according to gf haddad's own statement that there was difference of opinion amongst ahl al-sunna about the tafdhil.

----

imam abul hasan ashari had his own opinion abot tafdhil and the person reponsible for spreading the ashari school of thought imam qazi abu bakr baqilani himself differed about the matter of tafzil with him as it is in his al-manaqib and also you may check ibn hajr makki saying that qazi abu bakr baqilani differed with al-ashari.

----

gf haddad's mention of al-ibana of abul hasan ashari is also problematic because below is what it says in that book about Imam azam abu hanifa®.

Imam Muwaffiq al-khawarzmi al-hanafi, the man who authored manaqib abu hanifa and jami al-masanid, both about Imam Azam abu hanifa. and the manaqib abu hanifa is a work of reference for hanafis and you will see people quoting from it about the life of imam abu hanifa. imam khawarzmi al-hanafi also wrote 'manaqib ameer al-mumineen' which is about imam ali and he has chapter called 'Ali is Afdhal from all sahaba'.

this is just the tip of the ice-berg, there are so many references about the difference of opinion about mufadala bayn as-sahaba that if one wants issue fatawa of bidat then many amongst aslaaf would be called bidatis.

recently, the mujaddid before aalahazrat, Shah abdul aziz muhadith dehlavi, the author of famous book tuhfa isna ashariyya, which is a refutation of shia. he writes in his fatawa azizi. when asked whether it is ok to read namaz behind an imam who considers Imam Ali afdhal over shaykhain. he says, yes it is ok to read namaz behind usch a person as long he does also loves shaykhain and holds Ali as afdhal. he says that such a person is sunni and that hassan bin sabit, salman farsi etc also held this aqeeda that imam ali was afdhal.

now, start your fatwa machine call all those above as bidatis and declare shah abdul aziz muhadith dehlavi an opener of the door of bidat, whilst you are at it!!!

by the way, the teachers of hanafi fiqh such as al-qama, aswad etc all considered that hazrat abdullah bin masud was the most afdhal after the Prophet(s).....

Shaykh GF Haddad is considered quite a strong scholar, so it is very strange to see him stooping to a sub-standard level in pursuit of a refutation

I honestly think, yet again, there are fitna makers who have filled his ears, causing the Shaykh to act in this way.

I remember many years ago when I mentioned the name of Huzoor Mufakkir e Islam to Shaykh Haddad - his response was disappointing to say the least. He said that he was informed that Mufakkir e Islam was Shi'i and had nothing to do with Ahlus Sunnah! When I asked him for his reasons to say such a thing, there was silence.

It is a sad state of affairs when Ulama act in this way. The issues are scholarly and deserve research - not mudslinging!

I hope Shaykh Haddad does read this thread (ignoring any malicious comments) and sees the evidence on both sides of the scales

Is it too hard to accept that there are VALID differences of opinion on certain issues?

Brother Hanafi student you have left out a few key issues. It may be that Mr. G F Haddad was discourteous to a specific scholar but the key issue has not been tackled.

One group is claiming Ijma' and the other is saying their is no Ijma'. No doubt this is a matter which pertains to the Usul, and therefore very contentious.

For arguements sake we say Gibril misrepresented the passage from Maqala of Imam Abu alHasan alAshari, youstill would have to reply to his critique where he says:

Imam al-Ash`ari states the Sunni Ijma` that Abu Bakr is the best of this Ummaafter the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, in al-Ibana and in Ijma` 46 ofhis Risala ila Ahl al-Thaghr, and it is his own position `aqlan as well asconfirmed by Imam Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi in the section on tafdil in his bookUsul al-Din. Imam al-Ash`ari even considered that the proof for the primacy ofAbu Bakr and `Umar, Allah be well-pleased with them, is in the Qur'an, as shownfrom the conclusion of his Luma`.

.

Sidi KattarSunni,

The issue is two folds:

1- Misrepresentation and misqoutation, then mockery/slander by someone who is an activist in the Dawah is a problem. Especially when it is consistant and persistent. Especially, when he mentions and slanders scholars by name. This is not a Sufi methodology Akhi. A Muslim finds 70 excuses before accusing another Muslim, let along scholars. If we set a precedent to disrespecting sunni scholars we disagree with, all that will build a viscisous circle of sandering and re-slandering. Actions and reactions on all sides. This is not a Sunni nor a healthy environment. All those Shuyukh contribute to Muslims and to the Ummah in their own great ways. Differences and mistakes are inevitable, but the way we deal with mistakes of scholars or differences, must be Islamic.

2- It is not for argument sake that we admit that Shaykh GF Haddad misrepresented the passage, it is a matter of fact, and if you or him can challenge that from Imam Abul Hasan's words, then by Allah I will publish my apology right on this page publically and seek his forgiveness. So since the issue is not a matter of joke, since some people base their accusation of deviation (Fisq) on it!!!. We need not to beat around the bush, and make emotional excuses. Lets keep the love between us as our guide, but discuss the facts on the table based on that Sunni love for each other. This is not an issue of whether or not the Hounrable Parents/Abu Talib are in Paradise or Jahannam. This is an issue about doing Tafsiq of current and past Muslim scholars, including Sahaba (ra), and prominent figures of Ahlul Bayt from the Salaf time such as Zayyidina Abu Tufayl Amer bin Wathila (ra), Imam Zayd, Imam Ja'far, Imam Zaynul Abidin, and even higher up, and from the Khalaf.

3- Akhi, know may Allah bless you, that nobody worth his salt in knowledge disagrees that Imam Abul Hasan (ra) went to say that Sayyidina Abu Bakr (ra) is the absolute best person after the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, in a Qat'i way, according to him.

But the issue was about the Maqlat and GF Haddad's misqoutation and misreprestantion of it. There are 3 ways: 1- either Al Maqalt is fakely attributed to Imam Abul Hasan? (provide Daleel).

2- Imam Abul Hasan lied in this passage or said silly things (like some [Jahel] said that it is just sayings, after all it is Maqalaat!!, and I wonder what is the final point, did Imam Abul Hasan state the Ikhtilaaf in an authentic way to him, or did he not). These sayings are they authentically narrated to him?. what are the rest of his and other Ulama of Firaq's statments, arent they also statements in the linguistic aspect, for they are not Qur'an nor Hadith!!). (Provide Daleel)

3- Imam Abul Hasal did not mean to state the Ikhtilaf, then you go into twisting the truth and confusing the laymen in the difference between stating Ikhtilaaf amongst the Salaf and the Imam's opinion on the issue. Both of which he stated clearly and honestly. (provide Daleel).

The problem is not in affirming that our Imams of Ahlus Sunnah (may Allah be pleased with them uttered and wrote about our Ijma on the superiority of Sayydina Assidiqq (ra). The problem is that our own IMAMS who did mention the word Ijma, such as Bagdadi, Al Ash'ari, Baqillani, and others, did not lose their Iman by calling the Imams who preceeded them as Kafirs or Bid'ati's or out of the folds of the Sunnah. i.e. we don't see Imam Bagdadi or Ahs'ari calling Imam Zaynul Abidin Bid'ati, like some ignorants lately, who do not stop at preaching the understanding of Ahlus Sunnah, but to go to slander the Sahaba and the Imams of Ahlul Bayt who did in fact (based on authentic and undeniable narrations) favoured Ali over all. I believe anyone who calls such figures as Imam Zayd or his father Imam Zaynul Abidin as Fasiq because they favoured their grandfather over all, is the real and TRUE MUNAFIQ and Khabees.

About Sayyidina Siddiqq's superiority, this is the settlement of Ahlus Sunnah's opinion, and there is no doubt about that, at least the majority of the Ulama of Ahlus Sunnah throughout the later (Khalaf) times. That is not a point of disagreement at all here. At least I dont believe it to be. Imam Abul Hasan is entitled to his opinion, we love it and respect. But we are trying to see if all agreed/agree with him, especially those who are much more higher ranking than him, may Allah be pleased with them all.

We are here discussing a passage from the Book Al Maqalat by Imam Abul Hasan. The presentation of that passage is a misrepresented by Shaykh Gibril. We are not discussing the opinion of Imam ABul Hasan, or his own final opinion. His opinion is clear in what I stated above.

We are discussing:Was there Ikhtilaf among the Sahaba, Tabi'in, and Salaf of Ahlus Sunnah in this? Yes there was. Did Imam Abul Hasan mention the Ihktilaf between Ahlus Sunnah in this. Yes he did, based on his book. Remember the point here is : mentioning the Ikhtilaf, not weighing in on it, or settling his opinion on one side or another. There are Sahaba and higher ranking people than Imam Abul Hasan who went to a differnt opinion than his. And there are Sahaba and Higher ranking people who shared his opinion as well.

Now, the other question is: is there Ijma or there isn't.

The answer is: there is and there isn't.

There wasn't an Ijma in the Sahaba and Tabi'in time. After that Ahlus Sunnah scholars did have an Ijma on the issue. This is basically what happened. Therefore, you will see many Sahaba (ra) with AUTHENTIC narrations saying Ali or Fatima is better, while others say Abu Bakr, or other people.

This pattern is much rarely found after the Tabi' Tabi'in, as the school of Ahlus Sunnah go crystalised and structured more, and went to the Afdaliyat of Sayyidina Assiddiqq (ra). Now, with that we have another issue of differences among the Salaf of Ahlus Sunnah. Is this Afdaliyat Qat'i (definitive) or Thanni (maybe). You will see Imams like Abul Hasan Al Ash'ari who goes to its Qat'i affirmation, and others like the second post I mentioned who go to its Thanniyat (i.e doubtful affirmation = may , maybe not) such as Imam Ghazzali, Imam Al Haramyn, Ibn Hajar, Maziri, Ibn Arabi, etc..

So Ahlus Sunnah scholars like Bagdadi, Ash'ari, Ibn Hajar, Baqillani, Ali Qari, did mention words such as Ajma'a or Atbaqa, giving a notion of Ijma or agreement of the scholars on the Afdaliyat of Sayydina Assiddiqq. Like I said, there are Sahaba, Tabi'in, and Imams of Ahlul Bayt who were vocal about their opinion on the Afdaliyat of Ali, such as Imam Zayd, Imam Ja'far, Imam Zaynul Abidin, and from the Sahaba (ra), there are more than just a handful.

But Ahlus Sunnah did seem to form a massive agreement on the Afdaliyat of Abu Bakr over Ali, and many Ulama of Ahlus Sunnah in the salaf time, did infact use the word Ajm'a or Atbaqa. This is an undeniable fact.

Now, is this a legally binding Ijma or not. And is/was this Ijma followed by all Sunni scholars or did some choose not to follow it. The answer is simply: for the Ijma to be binding, it must be the entire Ummah doing the Ijma, not just Ahlus Sunnah, as per the Hadith and as per Imam Ghazzali', Imam Subki's, Imam Shawkani's defintion of Ijma. So in the Usuli defintion of Ijma, it is only the Ijma of Ahlus Sunnah, not the Ummah. (since the Mutazilah, and all the Shia who are still Muslims favour Ali without a question, there will never be an Ijma of the Ummah on this). Additionally, many prominent figures from the Salaf and Khalaf did go to the Afdaliyat of Sayyidina Ali, and I will not call Sayydina Imam Zayd as Fasiq or Bid'ati -nauthu billah-. Imam Abu Hanifa gave him bay'ah knowing his belief, without objecting. Abu Hanifah was the student and Murid of Imam Zayd. For some Jahel nowadays to come and declare those Akaber as deviants, only raise suspicion about their knowledge and their motives. So not ALL Ahlus Sunnah went to that opinion, despite the alledged Ijma that was in fact articulated by many of our Akaber, may Allah be pleased with them. And the alledged Ijma, was by Ahlus Sunnah only. One can argue, that: the Ijma of Ahlus Sunnah is sufficient for us to follow, we dont' need to have an Ijma of the whole Ummah, sunni and Bid'ati, on an issue. The argument can be constructed as such: that we are not necessarily looking for the issue at stake to be legally binding, but for what is more righteous and Sunni like. This is a good argument that has merits and should be followed. But one should not base a legal implication on those who don't follow it, and act in a manner or position similar to what some Sahabi's or Imams of Ahlul Bayt, or one of the pious Salaf did or said. Thats where the danger is.

The issue ought to be dropped entirely in my view. and we shouldn't make a big deal out of it, but keep teaching the Sunni belief of the first righteous Khalifah is Assiddiqq, and the sequence, and we should love them all, glorify them, and follow their footsteps.

The best thing is to keep teaching Ahlus Sunnah like most of our Ulama do, even those who love Ali more than anyone else (yet not necceasarily do Tafdil of him in a Qat'i way over the others). As love and Tafdil are two different issues. Besides, any Sufi worth his salt cannot favour a "piece of = Bad'at" of the Mustafa -sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, over anybody else. Especially that Sufia believe in the Noorani essence of the Mustafa, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, unlike other humans. Hence, by anyone's definition, in that aspect ( as Imam Subki mentions) Al Hasan wal Husayn are better than Assiddiqq, may Allah be pleased with all. So Akhi, the issue is not as clear cut as people like Shaykh GF Haddad tries to make it, and then issues mockings/borderline slandering statements against scholars on that basis.

Best is to stick to the Ijma of Ahlus Sunnah on the Afdaliyat of the four based on their sequence, and as far as the heart and where it goes, nobody has control of that. More importantly that we do not label the pious predecessors such as the Sahaba (ra) and imams of Ahlul Bayt (ra) who held such view as deviants from the Sunnah, or Fasiqs. And leave the high-level academic Ikhtilaf to the ULAMA only between them.

Then there is the issue of quoting Companions and different Scholars on this same issue. It is very clear that one of the Speakers quoted Masu'di and made him seem to the illiterate audience as a valid source of law, when it is well known that this Masu'di is very instrumental for orientalists.

You have yet to tackle Shaykh Gibrils criticism of Masu'di. And as you stand as an apologist you would have to explain why the Speaker mentions Masu'di and then makes him seem like a very reliable Scholar?? Shaykh Gibril says:

As for the passage quoting Ibn `Abbas it is from Muruj al-Dhahab by al-Mas`udi,a Shi`i Mu`tazili as Ibn Hajar described him in Lisan al-Mizan (4:225), and hespecifically lambasted that writer's position on the tafdil of Sayyidina `Ali;on top of which this report is chainless and its Arabic is incoherent. Can youimagine Mu`awiya repeatedly addressing Ibn `Abbas, Allah be well-pleased withthem, with the words: "Ayyuha ya Ibna `Abbas"??

You cited examples of Scholars who (according to you) did not see this as an issue of Usul, the likes of Juwayni etc. You would have to know that these Ulama differed in their Mustalahat (jargon) when discussing the same thing. A good example of this is Juwaynis definition of Ijma'...

This topic was debated in earlier threads and pertinent questions remain unanswered and whole posts have been deleted. But i hope you deal with Gibril's comments properly and then we can take it from there, inshaAllah.

1- Look, I knew when I first heard the speech and Huzoor Mufakire Islam mentioned Al Masu'di that he will be criticised for it. While I don't want to go into the subject of Mas'udi and his credibility, and why, and what is his Math'hab, despite his glorification of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and all Ummahat Al Mu'minin, etc.. This is a long story. He did articulate history being bold implicating Muawiyah (ra) in many things, and thats the reason for the backlash against him, in my judgment. Yet, the man is the grandson of Sayyidina Ibn Mas'ud, and in everything in his book, he did always glorify the four Khulafa, especially Abu Bakr and Umar (ra). Anyways, I'lll give you the Mas'udi, and I wouldn't use him as a refernce, just because the otherside won't accept him as reliable Sunni. yet, I am still trying to find out what kind of Shi'i was he, according to Imam Ibn Hajar!!! May Allah have mercy on them all. Sayyidi Shaykh Muhammad did tell me once, that I should not rely on Mas'udi in any thing pertaining to that. So thats that.

2- For the issue of Tafdil, you do not really need Masu'dis narrations at all, we have more than sufficient authentic narrations in our mainstream accepted texts to show both sides of the story equally contradicting.

3- I did not cite scholars with statements " according to me". I in fact, challenge you in a friendly and brotherly way with seeking knowledge spirit, to show me otherwise. Those scholars statements were unequvical in stating that the Issue of Tafdil is not among the Aqa'ed issue. Point Blank. While many others, did exactly the opposite. The point I was trying to make, that it is a matter of disagreement. Because it is, we should let it go. I am fully aware of the differentiation of the Mustalahat among those great scholars, and was mindful of that when I said what I said.

4- Akhi, the problem at hand is not Shaykh Gibril's views. His view on favouring Sayydina Assiddiqq are heart-warming to me and all my friends, and Shuyukh. It is the mocking or borderline slander in his critique of scholar.

I will however, try to answer and refute the rest of article above insha'Allah.

GF Haddad is a great Sunni scholar and he is entitled to express his views just like every other learned man. We love him for the sake of Allah Subhana Watala and pray that Allah grants him an opportunity to discuss the topic face to face with the individual he has raised his pen against. Tahir

Sidi Tahir, nobody has a problem with Shaykh GF Haddad expressing his opinions and view. Even if we disagree with his views/opinions, we would still welcome him and his contribution to the Ummah. But my concern was only about mocking or borderline slandering other scholars, and about misrepresenting the text without Daleel.

May Allah Ta'ala bless, preserve and protect people like Shaykh Gf Haddad and all the activists in teh Dawah to Allah, and all the Ulama of Islam, and all the Muslims.

Brother Hanafi student you have left out a few key issues. It may be that Mr. G F Haddad was discourteous to a specific scholar but the key issue has not been tackled.

One group is claiming Ijma' and the other is saying their is no Ijma'. No doubt this is a matter which pertains to the Usul, and therefore very contentious.

For arguements sake we say Gibril misrepresented the passage from Maqala of Imam Abu alHasan alAshari, youstill would have to reply to his critique where he says:

Imam al-Ash`ari states the Sunni Ijma` that Abu Bakr is the best of this Ummaafter the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, in al-Ibana and in Ijma` 46 ofhis Risala ila Ahl al-Thaghr, and it is his own position `aqlan as well asconfirmed by Imam Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi in the section on tafdil in his bookUsul al-Din. Imam al-Ash`ari even considered that the proof for the primacy ofAbu Bakr and `Umar, Allah be well-pleased with them, is in the Qur'an, as shownfrom the conclusion of his Luma`.

Then there is the issue of quoting Companions and different Scholars on this same issue. It is very clear that one of the Speakers quoted Masu'di and made him seem to the illiterate audience as a valid source of law, when it is well known that this Masu'di is very instrumental for orientalists.

You have yet to tackle Gibrils criticism of Masu'di. And as you stand as an apologist you would have to explain why the Speaker mentions Masu'di and then makes him seem like a very reliable Scholar?? Gibril says:

As for the passage quoting Ibn `Abbas it is from Muruj al-Dhahab by al-Mas`udi,a Shi`i Mu`tazili as Ibn Hajar described him in Lisan al-Mizan (4:225), and hespecifically lambasted that writer's position on the tafdil of Sayyidina `Ali;on top of which this report is chainless and its Arabic is incoherent. Can youimagine Mu`awiya repeatedly addressing Ibn `Abbas, Allah be well-pleased withthem, with the words: "Ayyuha ya Ibna `Abbas"??

You cited examples of Scholars who (according to you) did not see this as an issue of Usul, the likes of Juwayni etc. You would have to know that these Ulama differed in their Mustalahat (jargon) when discussing the same thing. A good example of this is Juwaynis definition of Ijma'...

This topic was debated in earlier threads and pertinent questions remain unanswered and whole posts have been deleted. But i hope you deal with Gibril's comments properly and then we can take it from there, inshaAllah.

The critique of G. F. Hadad, or any claims of previous scholars regarding the Ijma on Afzaliat become invalid even when a single evidence against Ijmae Sahaba can be produced. Mufakir e Islam has provided not one, not two, but dozens of conter example from athentic sources, including shaba and ahlbait differing from the so called Ijma on this issue. If it were Ijtam e Qati (total consensus) among Sahaba, then the situation would have been different. Any body differeing from consensus of sahaba will become Kafir or put of fold of Ahl Sunnah. For a total concensus, it is necessary that a meeting of all concerned (Sahaba in this case)be held and the issue be discussed and agreed upon, however, there is no evidence from history that any such meeting was held anytime. Therfore, the ijma if any is conjectural or Ijma zanni, as a clear or concrete evidence from Quran and Sunnah in this context either did not exist or has not been agreed upon.

What I understand is that G.F. Hadad does not understand urdu and has relied upon others regarding the information in the speech. He is obviously misinformed about the beleiefs of Mufakir e Islam. Otherwise, it should have been obvious to him that Mufakireislam is bringing counter examples and need not to concentrate on those examples which support the majority opinion that Hazrat Abubakar is afzal, as he himself is convinced of that and believes the same. His difference of opinion is scholarly in nature, and he has done justice to the position he has taken in this debate.

However, it is indeed ununderstandable, why he has stooped so low in slandering mufakir e islam.

Observe also how the speaker in the link provided passes quickly over the hadithin Sahih al-Bukhari in which Ibn `Umar, radya Allahu `anhuma, states theagreement of the Sahaba: "We used to say in the time of the Prophet, Abu Bakr,then `Umar, then `Uthman" and instead latches on to some forgery from a Shi`ibook; how then does he expect to be taken seriously after such talbis?

1- What Shaykh GF Haddad doesn't understand, while rushing to slander Huzoor Mufakire Islam as Mulabbes, is that Sayyidi Mufakire Islam was not trying to articulate a case on Tafdil, therefore he wasn't using evidences to that and negating contrary ones. He was simply trying to show that some of our Akaber Imams, such as Imam Suyuti, and Imam Razi, used to write things in their books, or pass by statements/narrations in their books indicating the absolute superiority of Sayydina Ali over all Sahaba, without making any contradictory or displeased gestures or statements. .....Unlike some of the recent over-zealous people who rush to declare -by default- Sahaba to be Bid'ati, because of that. It is no excuse that some of our recent Akaber did say that. Sunni Islam does not stay blindly on a slip of a great scholar, but bases itself on the authentic Narrations. Besides, statements and positions by Imams such as Imam Zayd bin Imam Zaynul Abdidin, quite frankly are not abolished and erased, even if a billion people jump up and down labeling them with Fisq and deviation- nauthu billah-, for holding their grandfather at the highest place after the Prophets.

2- I register my objection to the mockery in using: and instead latches on to some forgery from a Shi`i book; how then does he expect to be taken seriously after such talbis?

We in Sunni Sufi Islam, learned to respect our scholars and the Itra of our Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, for His Sake, may the best Salat and salam be on him and them. Such deragatory statements are only indicative of its origin.

1- Sayyidi Mufakire Islam did not latch onto anything dear respected Shaykh Gibril. He was pointing out some statements. Maybe in your judgment you feel that Mas'udi in not realiable, to him, maybe he is. The least you can do is discredit the source, without mocking the Scholar, who to say the least is at the age of your father, and a scholar, and he happens to be a son of the Prophet you follow, whom we are ordered to love and respect by no other than Sayyidina Abu Bakr (ra), as in Bukhari.

2- If you want to call the Mas'udi a Shia. I'll let you get away with that. But you know exactly what Imam Ibn Hajar means when he called him Shia. Fairness and ilmi amanah would have been to fully disclose that. what kind of Shia school did Mas'udi belong to? That is another thing. If Mas'udi is a Muslim- and we believe he is, unless you want to declare him Kafer, you are in trouble, for accusing him of lying without a Daleel. May Allah forgive us all.

3- I am not speaking on behalf of Sayyidi Mufakire Islam, but as a beginner level student of knowledge, I can explain to you why: the speaker in the link provided passes quickly over the hadithin Sahih al-Bukhari in which Ibn `Umar, radya Allahu `anhuma, states theagreement of the Sahaba: "We used to say in the time of the Prophet, Abu Bakr,then `Umar, then `Uthman"

The reason he passes quickly over the Hadith is:

1- You say: states the agreement of the Sahaba. That is untrue, as it implies that ALL the SAHABA (ra) agreed on that. You already know that many Sahaba (ra) in authentic narrations favoured Ali over Abu Bakr. So it is what Sayyidina Ibn Umar said about himself and maybe a group with him. It seems that Fatima Azzahra (as) does not see that, nor do the Hasanayn, nor do Sahaba like Sayyidina Abu Tufayl Aamer bin Wathila, for example.

2- Shaykh Gibril Haddad did not write the full Hadith in his refutaion of Sayyidi Mufakire Islam.

To Ibn Umar (ra) he said: " we used - in the time of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam- not equate anyone with Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman, then we leave all the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, we do not favour one of them over the other".

What Shaykh GF Haddad Hafithau Allah left out (not saying purposely) was the end of the Hadith, in which Ibn Umar says that he and " the Sahaba with him" after Uthman did not say anyone of the Sahaba is better than the other, and left them all equal on the same rank.

There are other narration that are authentic also, which says: ونسكت and استوى الناس

which means: " after Uthman, we remain silent. i.e. we don't say who is better". The other narration is: Istawa An-Nas: means that : " after uthman, all people are now equal in the rank".

Not assuming the knowledge of Sayyidi Mufakire Islam, or other of our great Ulama, but let me shed some light on the problems with this Hadith:

why did Huzoor Mufakire Islam "passes it quickly":

1- The Hadith in Bukhari and Ahmad. But the Hadith has lots of problems, and anyone who even smelled the science of Hadith would have known it.

2- The Hadith contradicts the Qu'ran. Because the Hadith qoutes that after Uthman all are equal or we do not favour one over another.

Obviously the Qur'an itself does favour one over others, other than the first 3.

A- Al Qu'ran favoured. By saying: As-sabiqin over the later comers as in the Qur'an.

C- What the Authentic Sunnah came with, indicating that some Sahaba are better than others (excluding the 3), such as the authentic Hadith in Abu Tharr, the authentic Hadith in Ibn Mas'ud, the authetic Hadith stating that Jannah yearns for Ammar, Bilal, Salman, Miqdad, Al Hasan and Husayn being the Masters of its youth, Ja'far, the people of the Bay'ah of Shajara, the people of Badr, the people of Uhud, the people of Khandaq, Al Ansaar as a whole, etc.....

So to say: according to the Thaaher of the Hadith that Ammar and Ali are equal to those who becamse Muslims after the Fat'h and did not spend, nor did they fight, are equal, is a clear contradition of the Holy Book and a violation of what Allah Ta'ala told us.

It is also a violation of the authentic Sunnah, and it only needs a glance to see it.

Which means: " The ULAMA agreed to interpret (take them away from their superficial meaning) these words of Ibn Umar, that is because it is affirmed by all Ahlus Sunnah that they favour Ali after Uthman, and then they favour the 10 Mubasharin, then they favour the people of Badr over those who weren't there, and other things..."

وقال الكرماني : لا حجة في قوله " كنا نترك "

Which means: " Al Karamani said: there is no Hujja (substance/Daleel/substantiation) in when he (Ibn Umar) said: we didn't favour (any one after Uthman)....."

ولو سلمنا فقد عارضه ما هو أقوى منه

then he said: which means: " and if we agree that there is Hujja, then it is contradicted by stronger evidence".

" Ibn Abdul Barr denounced that narration, and relied on what he narrated through Harun bin Is'haq saying: I heard Ibn Ma'in saying: whoever says Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali, and knows for Ali his Fadl and advancement, then he is a person of Sunnah. He said: I asked him: how about those who say: Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, then remain silent. He (Ibn Ma'in) said bad things about them. It was followed that Ibn Ma'in rejected the sayings of a group known Al Uthmaniyyah, who go extreme in loving Uthman and denounce Ali, so no doubt that anyone who stop at the 3 and does not recognize the Fadl of Ali, is denounced. Ibn Abdul Barr also said: that this Hadith is contrary to Ahlus Sunnah position, that Ali is the best after the 3, for they agreed the Ali is the best of the people after the three, and this Ijma leads to the conclusion that the Hadith of Ibn Umar is WRONG, even if the Isnaad is authentic".

5- This Hadith is contradicted by the actions of the Sahaba (ra) themselves, and therefore we do not have a single narration that any of them, used it when they disagreed, and needed such a text. Places such as:

A- Saqeefa events and the selection process of Sayyidina Abu Bakr (ra), and some voiced opposition.

B- When Sayyidina Abu Bakr appointed Umar as the Khalifah, and some voiced ooposition.

C- When the Sahaba gathered after the death of Umar (ra), as Ali himself wanted the Khilafa for himself (in VIOLATION of this alledged Hadith and in fact Abur Rahman bin Awf gave the Khilafa to Ali first. Al Bukhari narrates in his Saheeh:ثُمَّ قامَ عَلِيٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِهِ، وهْوَ عَلى طَمَعٍ

" then Ali left ( the selection process of Khalifa after Umar) and he has ambitions in it".

D- In fact, the hadith is contradicted by Ibne Umar HIMSELF. For in the selection of the 3rd Khalifah, Ibn Umar was among the 6 people, and he never used this Hadith to eliminate the selection process and choose Uthman.

" a man asked Ibne Umar about uthman. He (Ibn Umar) said: he was among those who escaped on the day of the battle and Allah forgave him, then he did something (thanb) so they killed him. Then the man asked him about Ali. He ( Ibn Umar) said: don't ask about him, don't you see his closeness to Rasoolillah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam".

So here in this authentic Hadith, Ibne Umar (ra), entirely contradicts his other Hadith.

6- Imam Ibn Abul Barr in his Istithkaar vol 14/page 240 said, after denying the authenticity of the Hadith:

" this is a Shath (irregular) hadith, that is not supported by any of the fundemental rules, and any hadith that has no origin, cannot be used as a substantiation. Yet the Awam (laymen) went to it because of their ignorance, while they are in agreement to its conrtadiction unknowingly. They invalidated it while affirming it, for they don't disagree that Ali is the forth of the four in Tafdil. But in their Hadith through Ibn Umar they don't favour anyone after Uthman, and they remain silent after the 3 on favouring anybody, so they dissovled what they affirmed, and Allah is The Helper against the ignorance of the laymen of this era".

7- In fact, Ibn Umar himself, used to feel the problem with this narration, therefore he used to sometimes add things to it to balance it. This is seen in what Ibn Hajar said in the Fat'h vol 7, page 359:

Which means" Ibn Umar said: We used to say - in the time of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam- that the best people is Abu Bakr, then Umar, and Ali bin Abi Taleb was given three things. If I had one of them it is more beloved to me than the best camels: The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam married him his daughter and she gave birth for him, and he ordered all the doors to the Masjid closed except Ali's door, and he gave him the flag the day of Khaybar". Ahmad narrated it and its isnaad is Hasan".

7- For more information on this Hadith and its problems, please see what Imam Khattabi said about it in Ma'alem As-Sunan, and Karamani in Shar'h Bukhari, and Ibn Hajar and other senior scholars of Ahlus Sunnah.

There are many more things and narrations about this Hadith, which are simply and plainly obvious to any beginner in the sacred knowledge, and because of that and a lot more - I assume- that Huzoor Mufakire Islam the speaker in the link provided passes quickly over the hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari in which Ibn `Umar, radya Allahu `anhuma......avoided it in a short-timed public gathering. he did not have time to teach all these basic things about the Hadith.

One thing besides his knowledge what I admire about him, is that he says what he believes in, he doesn't care, whether it upsets deobandis or brelwis or salafis, he doesn't fear, or pretend. i.e He will tell you to your face.

He just says it, as it is

But on the downside, he has a very razor sharp sometimes very rude refutations of Scholars. Scholars who are his seniors are sometimes treated with a very harsh razor sharp tongue.

This obviously and rightly so, makes him look bad and alienate mureeds of Scholars whome his refuting

in the second volume of maqalat al-islamiyyin imam al-ash'ari lists opinions of sunnis as well as heretics under various headings. this part of the text does not mention the word ahl as-sunnah at all and the 'qayilun' does not mean 'one opinion among ahl as-sunnah'.

-----the said passage is listed under para-175 (pg.131)

on the contrary, in vol.1 of the said book, on page 320 is the heading:

'here is the description of the sayings (beliefs) of the people of hadith and ahl as-sunnah.'

under this heading, on page 323 imam al-ash'ari says:

and they [ahl as-sunnah] consider abu bakr the foremost and then umar and then uthman and then ali

-----if someone insists that the above five opinions are all of ahl as-sunnah and that this book is the foundation of ahl as-sunnah such that everything therein is a valid ahl as-sunnah position, then:

in vol.2, pg 145, para-208:

and they differed in the matter of yazid being the imam/leader-khalifah (of his time).

1. some said: he was an imam by the ijma'a/consensus of muslims who accepted his leadership and swore fealty. except that al-husayn rejected some things which are rejectable.

2. some said: that his leadership [is valid] and al-Husayn was wrong when he rejected him.

3. some said: he cannot be considered a leader/imam in any way.

----are these three valid sunni positions too similar to the tafdil above?

kattar, I expected better than that. It seems as though you have totally ignored what Hanafi student has written. It is blatently obvious that the passage here is referring to the different Sunni aqai'd as the only one that is objectionable to you boys is the one which prefers 'Ali over Abu Bakr! Here it is again:

Some said: the best of people after Rasoolullah- sallallahu alayhi wa sallam-: Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman, then Ali.

Some said: The best of people after Rasoolullah-sallallahu alayhi wa sallam: Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Ali, then Uthman.

Some said: we say: Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman, then we remain silent.

Some said: the best of people after Rasoolullah-sallallahu alayhi wa sallam,: Ali, then Abu Bakr after him.

Those who went to affirmation of the Fadl of Abu Bakr and Umar, that Abu Bakr is Afdal than Umar, and those who went to affirmation of the Fadl of Umar and Uthman, that Umar is better than Uthman.